# HARi RAM & ANR v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2010] 2 S.C.R. 756
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2010-02-11
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5440 of 2000
- **Bench:** D.K. Jain, R.M. Lodha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hari-ram-anr-v-state-of-haryana-ors-26631
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
ss. 48, 4 and 6 -
Notification and declaration for acquisition of large tract of
C land for public purpose - Representation for release from
acquisition - State Government releasing land of similarly
situated landowners from acquisition but rejected appellants'
representation who were similarly placed - Challenge to -
Held: Where State Government exercises its power uls .. 48 for
o withdrawal from acquisition in respect of a particular land,
similarly situated landowners have right of similar treatment
by State Government - Government is duty bound to act with
substantial fairness and consistency in considering the
representations of such landowners - It cannot pick and
E choose some landowners and release their land from
acquisition and deny the same benefit to others - On facts,
State Government did not consider representation of
appellants by applying the same standards which were
applied to other land owners - No uniform policy with regard
F to release of land from acquisition existed - Thus, action of
State Government is violative of Article 14 and discriminatory
- State directed to issue appropriate orders in respect of
appellants' lands as done in the matters of other landowners
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14.
G
The notification was issued u/s. 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire large tract of
land. The land owners filed objections. The concerned
Land Acquisition Officer released lands of some of the
landowners and issued declaration u/s. 6 of the Act in
H
756
HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
757
respect of the remaining lands. Various landowners filed
A
writ petitions challenging the notifications u/ss. 4 and 6
of the Act; and also prayed for release of their lands.·
During pendency thereof, a Joint Inspection Committee
submitted its report. In view of the recommendations, the
High Court ordered release of land in favour of 22
B
landowners and dismissed the writ petitions of the other
petitioners including the appellants. The remaining
landlords applied u/s. 48 of the Act for release of their
land from acquisition. The State Government released the
land of several landowners from acquisition except the c
appellants. Aggrieved, appellants filed appeals before this
Court. During pendency, this Court directed the State
Government to consider the representation of the
appellants for release of their land from acquisition. The
appellants made representations and the' same were D
rejected on basis of the policy dated Octo~er 26, 2007.
The question for consideration in these 'appeals was
whether the action of the State Government in rejecting
the appellants' representations for withdrawal from
acquisition of their land is an ultra vires act and
E
discriminatory.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is true that any action or order contrary
F
to law does not confer any right upon any person for
similar treatment. It is equally true that a landowner
whose land has been acquired for public purpose by
following the prescribed procedure cannot claim as a
matter of right for release of his/her land from acquisition
but where the State Government exercises its power G
under section 48 of the Act for withdrawal from
acquisition in respect of a particular land, the landowners
who are similarly situated have right of similar treatment
by the State Government. Equality of citizens' rights is
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 2 S.C.R.
A one of the fundamental pillars on which edifice of rule of
law rests. All actions of the State have to be fair and for
legitimate reasons. The Government has obligation of
acting with substantial fairness and consistency in
considering the. representations of the landowners for
B withdrawal from acquisition whose lands have been
acquired under the same acquisition proceedi.ngs. The
State Government cannot pick and choose some
landowners and release their land from acqui!.~tion and
~eny the same benefit to other landowners by

## Text

_Characters 0–39,871 of 52,735. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39871 for what follows._

A
B
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 756
HARi RAM & ANR.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5440 of 2000)
FEBRUARY 11, 2010
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
ss. 48, 4 and 6 -
Notification and declaration for acquisition of large tract of
C land for public purpose - Representation for release from
acquisition - State Government releasing land of similarly
situated landowners from acquisition but rejected appellants'
representation who were similarly placed - Challenge to -
Held: Where State Government exercises its power uls .. 48 for
o withdrawal from acquisition in respect of a particular land,
similarly situated landowners have right of similar treatment
by State Government - Government is duty bound to act with
substantial fairness and consistency in considering the
representations of such landowners - It cannot pick and
E choose some landowners and release their land from
acquisition and deny the same benefit to others - On facts,
State Government did not consider representation of
appellants by applying the same standards which were
applied to other land owners - No uniform policy with regard
F to release of land from acquisition existed - Thus, action of
State Government is violative of Article 14 and discriminatory
- State directed to issue appropriate orders in respect of
appellants' lands as done in the matters of other landowners
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14.
G
The notification was issued u/s. 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire large tract of
land. The land owners filed objections. The concerned
Land Acquisition Officer released lands of some of the
landowners and issued declaration u/s. 6 of the Act in
H
756
HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
757
respect of the remaining lands. Various landowners filed
A
writ petitions challenging the notifications u/ss. 4 and 6
of the Act; and also prayed for release of their lands.·
During pendency thereof, a Joint Inspection Committee
submitted its report. In view of the recommendations, the
High Court ordered release of land in favour of 22
B
landowners and dismissed the writ petitions of the other
petitioners including the appellants. The remaining
landlords applied u/s. 48 of the Act for release of their
land from acquisition. The State Government released the
land of several landowners from acquisition except the c
appellants. Aggrieved, appellants filed appeals before this
Court. During pendency, this Court directed the State
Government to consider the representation of the
appellants for release of their land from acquisition. The
appellants made representations and the' same were D
rejected on basis of the policy dated Octo~er 26, 2007.
The question for consideration in these 'appeals was
whether the action of the State Government in rejecting
the appellants' representations for withdrawal from
acquisition of their land is an ultra vires act and
E
discriminatory.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is true that any action or order contrary
F
to law does not confer any right upon any person for
similar treatment. It is equally true that a landowner
whose land has been acquired for public purpose by
following the prescribed procedure cannot claim as a
matter of right for release of his/her land from acquisition
but where the State Government exercises its power G
under section 48 of the Act for withdrawal from
acquisition in respect of a particular land, the landowners
who are similarly situated have right of similar treatment
by the State Government. Equality of citizens' rights is
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 2 S.C.R.
A one of the fundamental pillars on which edifice of rule of
law rests. All actions of the State have to be fair and for
legitimate reasons. The Government has obligation of
acting with substantial fairness and consistency in
considering the. representations of the landowners for
B withdrawal from acquisition whose lands have been
acquired under the same acquisition proceedi.ngs. The
State Government cannot pick and choose some
landowners and release their land from acqui!.~tion and
~eny the same benefit to other landowners by creating
c artificial distinction. Passing different orders in exercise
of its power under section 48 of the Act in respect of
persons similarly situated relating to same acquisition
proceedings and for same public purpose is definitely
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and must be· held
0 to be discriminatory. [Para 24] [782-F-H; 783-A-C]
2.1. Lands of more than 40 landowners out of the
same acquisition proceedings have been ·released by the
State Government u/s. 48 of the Act. Some of the release
orders have be_e_IJ passed in respect of landowners who
E had not challenged the acquisition proceedings and
some of them had challenged the acquisition
proceedings before the High Court and whose cases
were not recommended by Joint Inspection Committee
for withdrawal from acquisition and whose writ petitions
F were dismissed. Some of these landowners had only
vacant plots of land and there was no construction at all.
In most of these cases, the award has been passed and,
thereafter, the State Government has withdrawn from
acquisition. It is not the case of the respondents that
G withdrawal from acquisition in favour of such
landowners has been in violation of any statutory
provision or contrary to law or was wrong action on their
part or It was done due to some mistake or a result of
fraud or corrupt motive. There is nothing to even remotely
H
HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
759
suggest that the persons whose lands have been
A
released have derived the benefit illegally. [Para 24] [781G-H; 782-A-D]
2.2. It is an admitted case of the respondents that
prior to October 26, 2007, the State of Haryana had no
8
uniform policy governing the release of land from
acquisition under section 48 of the Act. Although
respondents submitted that matter relating to release of
land from acquisition was governed from time to time by
various guidelines/parameters set out in intra-office C
communications governing individual acquisition, no
such guidelines/parameters have been placed on record
except a letter dated June 26, 1991 pertaining to review
progress of the various schemes of HUDA. The only
guideline discernible from the said letter is that survey of
existing construction should be done before notification
D
is issued under section 4 of the Act; that existing factory
should not be acquired and it should be released from
the proceedings of section 4 notification and that
constructed area of 'A' and 'B' grade should be left out
of acquisition. The policy articulated in the letter thus,
E
hardly helps the respondents. Neither the said policy nor
any other policy has been followed by the State
Government while releasing land of various landowners
whose lands have been acquired in the same acquisition
proceedings. As a matter of fact, the only policy that
F
seems to have been followed is: you show me the face
and I'll show you the rule. Insofar as policy of 2007 is
concerned, apparently that has not been applied to any
of the landowners whose land was acquired along with
the appellants' land under the same acquisition G
proceedings and released later on. When this Court
directed to the State Government by order dated August
19, 2008 to consider release of the land of the appellants
from acquisition, obviously the State Government was
required to consider the representations of the appellants
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 2 S.C.R.
A by applying the same standards as were applied to other
landowners whose lands were acquired for the same
purpose and under the same acquisition proceedings
and released later on. However, the representations made
by the appellants were rejected by relying upon the
B policy dated October 26, 2007 which on its face is
erroneous and unsustainable in law. [Paras 19 and 20]
[733-0-F; 774-E-H; 775-A-D]
2.3. As regards the guidelines provided in the letter
C dated June 26, 1991, classification on the basis of nature
of construction cannot be validly made and such policy
is not based on intelligible differentia and a rational basis.
What appears from the available material is that for
release of the lands under the subject acquisition, no
policy has been adhered to. This leads to an irresistible
D conclusion that no firm policy with regard to release of
land from acquisition existed. [Para 24] [782-D-F]
E
Sube Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2001)
7 SCC 541, Relied on.
2~4. By order dated August 19, 2008, this Court gave
an opportunity to the State Government to consider the
representations of the appellants for release of their land
and pass appropriate order but the State Government
F considered their representations in light of the policy
dated October 26, 2007 ignoring and overlooking the fact
that for none of the landowners whose lands have been
released from acquisition, the policy dated October 26,
2007 was applied. The State Government has sought to
set up make believe grounds to justify its action that
G development planning has been kept into consideration
and that the appellants have been offered developed plots
of double the area of construction while the fact of the
matter is that in some cases where the plots were vacant
and had no construction, the entire plot has been
H released from acquisition and also the cases where one
HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 761
room or two rooms construction was existing, the whole
A
of plot has been released. [Para 24] [783-D-G]
2.5. While releasing land of more than 40 landowners
having plots of size from 150 sq. yards to 1500 sq. yards,
if development plan did not get materially disturbed in the
8
opinion of the State Government, the same opinion must
hold good for the appellants' lands as well. It is unfair on
the part of the State Government in not considering
representations of the appellants by applying the same
standards which were applied to other landowners while
C
withdrawing from acquisition of their land under the
same acquisition proceedings. If this Court does not
correct the wrong action of the State Government, it may
leave citizens with the belief that what counts for the
citizens is right contacts with right persons in the State
Government and that judicial proceedings are not D
efficacious. The action of State Government in treating
the present appellants differently although they are
situated similar to the landowners whose lands have
been released can not be countenanced and has to be
declared bad in law. [Para 24] [783-G-H; 784-A-C]
E
2.6. The order of the State Government dated
September 29, 2008 is set aside. The respondent no.1State of Haryana is directed to issue appropriate order/s
concerning the appellants' lands on the same terms and
in the same manner as has been done in the matters of
SD, RK, MR and others. The portion of the lands which
in the layout plan forms part of roads or common sites
or public utility area should not be considered for
release. [Para 25] [784-C-E]
Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v.
Dau/at Mal Jain and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 35; Ja/andhar
Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh (1999) 3 SCC 494;
Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr.
F
G
H
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 2 S.C.R.
A (2003) 5 SCC 437; Ved Prakash and Ors. v. Ministry of
Industry, Lucknow and Anr. (2003) 9 SCC 542; Anand
Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2005) 9 SCC 164;
Vishal Properties (P) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 172; Jagdish Chand and Anr. v. State
B of Haryana and Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 162, referred to.
c
D
E
Case Law Reference:
(1997) 1 sec 35
Referred to.
Paras 7, 11
(1999) 3 sec 494
Referred to.
Paras 7, 12
(2003) 5 sec 437
Referred to.
Paras 7, 13
(2003) 9 sec 542
Referred to.
Paras 7, 14
(2005) 9 sec 164
Referred to.
Paras 7, 15
(2001) 11 sec 112
Referred to.
Paras 7, 16
(2005) 1 o sec 162
Referred to.
Paras 7, 18
(2001) 1 sec 545
Relied on.
Paras 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5540 of 2000.
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.8.1998 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition No.
F 15002 of 1995.
WITH
C.A. No. 5441, 5442, 5443, 5444, 5545, 5446, 5449 of 2000.
G
Harinder Mohan Singh, Kaushal Yadav, Durgesh Yadav,
H
Pradeep Yadav, S.B. Khan, R.K.Kapoor, Shweta Kapoor,
Harish C. Pani R. Pathan, Anis Ahmed Khan, Aseem Mehrotra,
Abhijat P. Medh, U.S. Prasad (NP), Govind Goel, Nitin Singh,
Ambuj Agarwal, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the appearing parties.
HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 763
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. This group of eight appeals involves
identical controversy and, hence, all these appeals were heard
together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
A
As a matter of fact, five appeals (5440/2000, 5442/2000, 5443/
B
2000, 5444/2000 and 5445/2000) have been disposed of vide
common judgment dated August 13, 1998 by the Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The other three
appeals (5449/2000 5441/2000 and 5446/2000) have been
disposed of by the High Court vide separate judgments dated
C
March 26, 1998, May 18, 1998 and August 13, i 998
respectively.
2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgments
and, therefore, we do not deem it necessary to repeat the same.
Suffice, however, to say that large tract of land admeasuring
D
184.56 acres situate at Narnaul was proposed to be acquired
for Urban Mini Estate by the Haryana Urban Development
Authority (HUDA) and, for the said public purpose, notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,
'Act') was issued on October 30, 1992. Many owners whose
lands were sought to be acquired filed objections under Section
5-A of the Act before the concerned Land Acquisition Officer.
Pursuant to these objections, land admeasuring 11.55 acres
was excluded and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
made in respect of 173.01 acres on October 28, 1993. Seventy
eight landowners filed 32 writ petitions in the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana challenging the notifications under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Act on diverse grounds. Inter alia, in
these writ petitions, the writ petitioners also prayed for release
E
F
of their respective lands. At this stage, it may also be noticed
G
that although declaration under Section 6 was made in respect
of 173.01 acres but award was passed for land admeasuring
172.57 acres only as the State Government is said to have
decided to release land of 13 landowners admeasuring 0.44
acres for which ultimately release order was passed on
H
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 2 S.C.R.
•
A February 28, 1997.
3. Reverting back to the writ petitions, it transpires that
during their pendency, Chief Administrator, HUDA-cumDirector, Urban Estates stated before the Division Bench on
B January 8, 1998 that HUDA was prepared to appoint a
committee to inspect the site and make recommendations
whether the land of the writ petitioners could be released or not.
Accordingly, a Joint Inspection Committee was constituted
comprising of Superintending Engineer, HUDA, Gurgaon; Land
C Acquisition Officer, Gurgaon and District Town and Country
Planner, Narnaul under the Chairmanship of Administrator,
HUDA, Gurgaon. The Committee carried out spot inspection
of the land owned by the petitioners and submitted its report
before the Division Bench on February 13, 1998. Insofar as the
present appellants are concerned, the Joint Inspection
D Committee did not recommend release of their land from
acquisition. The High Court took into consideration the report
submitted by the Joint Inspection Committee and keeping in
view the recommendations made by it ordered release of land
in favour of 22 owners and dismissed the writ petition of other
E petitioners including the present appellants.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that at least four petitioners
whose writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court on the
ground that Joint Inspection Committee had not recommended
F release of their land, later on applied under Section 48 of the
Act and by separate orders the Government released their land
from acquisition. It also appears that some of the owners
although did not challenge the acquisition in the court but
represented to the Government for release of their land from
G acquisition and their lands were also released.
H
5. During the pendency of these appeals, this Court vide
order dated August 19, 2008, keeping in view the earlier orders
passed by this Court and the affidavit in-reply dated June 27,
2008 (filed in Court on July 8, 2008) by Financial Commissioner
HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 765
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and
A
Country Planning and Urban Estate Department, Chandigarh
and the available material granted liberty to the appellants to
make representation(s) to the State Government for release of
their land from acquisition and the State Government was
directed to consider such representation(s) and pass
B
appropriate order/s within time granted therein.
6. In pursuance of the order dated August 19, 2008, the
appellants made representations before the State Government.
The lands owned by them admeasure between 300 sq. yards
to 1600 sq. yards. However, the representations made by the
C
appellants came to be rejected on September 29, 2008 on the
basis of the policy dated October 26, 2007.
7. We heard learned counsel for the parties at quite some
length on various dates. The principal grievance raised by the
D
appellants is that they have been discriminated by the State
Government in not releasing their land although land of similar
situated persons in identical facts and circumstances has been
released. On the other hand, Mr. Govind Goel, learned counsel
for the respondents justified the action of the State Government
E
and submitted that by an elaborate and speaking order, the
State Government has rejected the appellants' prayer of
release of their land from acquisition and there is no infirmity
in the said order. Mr. Govind Goel, learned counsel contended
that plea regarding discrimination is fallacious as release of
F
land of few owners after the impugned judgment cannot provide
permissible basis for advancing the plea of discrimination,
especially in the absence of any legal right for release. In this
regard, he relied upon decisions of this Court in the case of
Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipurv. Dau/at Mal G
Jain & Others1, Ja/andhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran
Singh2, Union of India and Another v. International Trading
1.
(1997) 1 sec 35.
2.
(1999) 3 sec 494.
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010) 2 S.C.R.
A Co. and Another3, Ved Prakash and Others v. Ministry of
Industry, Lucknow and Another, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State
of Haryana and Others5, and Vishal Properties (P) Limited v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others6 • He also referred to
decisions of this Court in Sube Singh and Others v. State of
B Haryana and Others7 and Jagdish Chand & Anr. v. State of
Haryana and Anr8.
8. Mr. Govind Goel, learned counsel for the respondents
also submitted that development planning and the parameters
of release of constructed area along with proportionate area
C were kept in view while considering the representations made
by the appellants. He would submit that instead of disturbing·
the entire layout plan and leaving the released area on the spot,
the appellants have been offered a fully developed plot in the
same septor of a size of land to which they became entitled on
D the basis of the constructed area in their land.
9. The only question that falls for our consideration in this
group of appeals is whether the action of the State Government
in rejecting the appellants' representations for withdrawal from
E acquisition oftheir land is an ultra vires act and discriminatory?
10. Section 48 of the Act empowers the Government to
withdraw from the acquisition of the land provided possession
has not been taken. The said power is given to the Government
by a statutory provision and is not restricted by any condition
F except that such power must be exercised before possession
is taken. The statutory provision contained in Section 48 does
not provide for any particular procedure for withdrawal from
acquisition.
G 3.
(2003) 5 sec 437.
4.
(2003) 9 sec 542.
5.
(2005) 3 sec 164.
6.
(2007) 11 sec 112.
1.
(2001) 1 sec 545.
H a.
(2005) 1 o sec 162.
HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
767
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
11. Before we consider the question further, a look at the
A
decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents at
this stage would be appropriate. In the case of Secretary,
Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur1, the question that arose
before this Court was whether High Court was right in directing
allotment of the lands to the respondents therein since allotment
B
made to others had become final and denial thereof to the
respondents would amount to violation of equality clause
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Dealing with the said
question, this Court observed :
"13. . ........ The intention behind the government actions
C
and purposes is to further the public welfare and the
national interest. Public good is synonymous with protection
of the interests of the citizens as a territorial unit or nation
as a whole. It also aims to further the public policies. The
limitations of the policies are kept along with the public
D
interest to prevent the exploitation or misuse or abuse of
the office or the executive actions for personal gain or for
illegal gratification:
14. The so-called public policy cannot be a camouflage for
E
abuse of the power and trust entrusted with a public
authority or public servant for the performance of public
duties. Misuse implies doing of something improper."
12. In Jalandhar Improvement Trust2, this Court was
concerned with the claim of the respondents being "local
displaced persons" to a plot each in lieu of the lands acquired
F
by the Trust. The plea of the respondents was that Trust had
made similar preferential allotments as "local displaced
persons" in favour of other persons. While considering the said
claim of the respondents, this Court held, "if it was not within
G
the scope of the rules then even those allotments in favour of
other persons will not create a right in the respondents to claim
equality with them; maybe, if the allotments were made wrongly
in favour of· those persons, the same may become liable for
H
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010) 2 S.C.R.
A cancellation, if permissible in .aw, but that will not create an
enforceable right on the respondents to claim similar wrongful
allotments in their favour''.
13. While dealing with the scope of judicial review in the
8 matter of policy decision of Government, this Court in
lntemational Trading Co. 3 held :
c
D
E
F
G
H
"14. It is trite law that Article 14 of the Constitution applies
also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or
any action of the Government, even in contractual matters,
fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be
unconstitutional.
15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise
of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute
or rule is wide enough, what -is imperative and implicit in
terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made
fairly and should not give the impression that it was so
done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep
of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action
qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of
the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The
basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the
State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is
the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the
panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State
must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically
for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and
concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than
precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action
is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts
and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious
test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any
discernible principle emerging from the impugned action
and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.
HARi RAM & ANR. v. SlATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 769
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
16. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an
A
act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure,
the deviation to act in a different manner which does not
disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself
shall be labelled as arbitrary. Every State action must be
informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed
B
by reason is per se arbitrary."
14. In Ved Prakash and Others4, this Court directed the
concerned authority to consider representations of the owners
for release of their land from acquisition under Section 48 of C
the Act. This is how the Court considered the matter:
"17. It is no doubt true that conclusion on Point 1 raised
in para 11 of the judgment in the case of Om Prakash was
recorded against the State but ultimately effective and
operative order is to be seen in paras 31 and 32 of the
D
said judgment. The ultimate direction was to consider the
representations of the appellants for releasing the lands
from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Act on being
satisfied of the five aspects mentioned in para 31 of the
judgment. It is also made clear in the said paragraph that
E
this Court did not express any opinion on the question
whether the appellants' lands had such abadi on the date
of Section 4 notification which would attract the State
policy of not acquiring such lands and whether such policy
had continued thereafter at the stage of Section 6
notification of 7-1-1992 and whether such policy was still
current and operative at the time when the appellants'
representations came up for consideration of appropriate
authorities of the State Government. It is further stated that
F
it will be for the State authorities to take the informed
G
decision in this connection. In the same paragraph, it is
stated that:
"We may not be understood to have stated anything
on this aspect, nor are we suggesting that the State
must release these lands from acquisition if the
H
770
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 2 S.C.R.
State authorities are not satisfied about the merits
of the representations."
This Court went on to say in para 32 that the entire matter
is left at large for the consideration of the State authorities
on the appellants' representations. It is further stated that
if the representations were made within the given time,
then the appropriate authority of the State Government shall
consider their representations regarding the feasibility of
releasing of such lands from acquisition under Section
48(1) of the Act on the ground that there were "abadis" on
these lands at the relevant time and are governed by any
existing State policy for releasing such lands from
acquisition.
18. Thus, it is clear that it was open to the State authorities
to consider regarding the feasibility of releasing such lands
from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Act after taking
into consideration the observations made and directions
given in paras 31 and 32 as aforementioned. We have
already noticed above that the competent authority of the
State gave hearing to the appellants, considered the
evidence and material placed on record and examined the
contentions raised on behalf of the parties in compliance
with the directions given and observations made in paras
31 and 32 of the judgment of this Court. The State authority
came to the conclusion for the reasons already stated
above that having regard to various aspects including
development scheme, it was found not feasible to release
the lands of the appellants under Section 48(1) of the Act.
The High Court did not find any good ground to disagree
with the findings of fact recorded by the State authority and
also found that the State authorities duly considered the
directions given and observations made by this Court as
contained in paras 31 and 32 of the judgment."
15. In Anand Buttons Ltd.5, the contention advanced by
H the appellants before this Court was that the decision of the
HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
771
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
State Government in not granting exemption from acquisition
A
to their lands was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution. Dealing with the said contention, this
Court obseNed :
"13. It is trite law that not only land but also structures on
8
land can be acquired under the Act. As to whether in a
given set of circumstances certain land should be
exempted from acquisition only for the reason that some
construction had been carried out, is a matter of policy,
and not of law. If after considering all the circumstances,
C
the State Government has taken the view that exemption
of the lands of the appellants would render askew the
development scheme of the industrial estate, it is not
possible for the High Court or this Court to interfere with
the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. We see no
ground on which the appellants could have maintained that
D
their lands should be exempted from acquisition. Even if
three of the parties had been wrongly exempted from
acquisition, that gives no right to the appellants to seek
similar relief."
E
16. In the case of Vishal Properties (P) Limited3, this Court
reiterated the legal position that : (i) Article 14 is not meant to
perpetuate an illegality. It provides for positive equality and not
negative equality; (ii) Courts cannot issue a direction that the
same mistake be perpetuated on the ground of discrimination
F
or hardship; (iii) Any action/order contrary to law does not
confer any right upon any person for similar treatment and; (iv)
An order made in favour of a person in violation of the
prescribed procedure cannot form a legal premise for any other
person to claim parity with the said illegal or irregular order. A
G
judicial forum cannot be used to perpetuate the illegalities.
17. In Sube Singh7 , while dealing with the contention that
the decision of the State Government in not accepting the
prayer of the petitioners for exclusion of their property from
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[201 O] 2 S.C.R.
A acquisition is arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as in the
case of owners of other lands lying within the area notified who
had sought exclusion of their property on the ground of existing
structures, the prayer was accepted and the lands were
excluded from acquisition and the response of the State
B Government that as per Policy, the State Government has
excluded from acquisition, 'A' Class constructions and since
the constructions on the petitioners' land were either 'B' Class
or 'C' Class, their land could not have been excluded, this Court
held that such policy was not based on intelligible differentia
c and a rational basis germane to the purpose. It was held :
D
E
F
G
H
"10. . ..... It remains to be seen whether the purported
classification of existing structures into 'A', 'B' and 'C'
Classes is a reasonable classification having an intelligible
differentia and a rational basis germane to the purpose. If
the State Government fails to support its action on the
touchstone of the above principle, then this decision has
to be held as arbitrary and discriminatory. It is relevant to
note here that the acquisition of the lands is for the purpose
of planned development of the area which includes both
residential and commercial purposes. That being the
purpose of acquisition, it is difficult to accept the case of
the State Government that certain types of structures which
according to its own classification are of 'A' Class can be
allowed to remain while other structures situated in close
vicinity and being used for same purposes (residential or
commercial) should be demolished. At the cost of
repetition, it may be stated here that no material was
placed before us to show the basis of classification of the
existing structures on the lands proposed to be acquired.
This assumes importance in view of the specific contention
raised on behalf of the appellants that they have pucca
structures with RC roofing, mosaic flooring etc. No attempt
was also made from the side of the State Government to
place any architectural plan of different types of structures
proposed to be constructed on the land notified for
HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 773
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
acquisition in support of its contention that the structures
A
which exist on the lands of the appellants could not be
amalgamated into the plan.
11. On the facts and circumstances of the case revealed
from the records, we are persuaded to accept the
8
contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the
rejection of the request of the appellants for exclusion of
their land having structures on them was not based on a
fair and reasonable consideration of the matter. We are
of the view that such action of the Government is arbitrary
C
and discriminatory ...... "
18. In the case of Jagdish Chanel', this Court issued the
directions as were given in the case of Sube Singh7 but
clarified that these directions are given on the particular facts
of the case and are not intended for any general application.
D
19. It is an admitted case of the respondents that prior to
October 26, 2007, the State of Haryana had no uniform policy
governing the release of land from acquisition under Section
4~ of the Act. Although learned counsel for the respondents
E
submitted that matter relating to release of land from acquisition
was governed from time to time by various guidelines/
parameters set out in intra-office communications governing
individual acquisition, no such guidelines/parameters have been
placed on record except a letter dated June 26, 1991 sent by
F
the Chief Administrator, HUDA to the Additional Director,
Urban Estate, Haryana, Manimajra and the Chief Controller of
Finance, HUDA, Manimajra pertaining to review progress of the
various schemes of HUDA which reads thus :
"1. That a land bank should be created in the current
G
financial year. Chief Controller of Finance, HUDA should
discuss the matter with Additional Director, Urban Estate
for financial planning, so that land bank could be treated.
2. That during the current year 2000 acres more land can
H
A
B
c
D
E
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 2 S.C.R.
be acquired provided additional amount is advanced for
the purpose.
3. That financial fore-cast should be prepared every month
for land lying notified under section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, should acquired. (sic)
4. That existing factories should not be acquired and
should be released from the proceedings of the section 4
notification. Constructed area of 'A' and 'B' grade should
be left out of acquisition.
5. That survey of existing construction be done before the
notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
6. That the area which is liable to be left out and of
acquired (sic) should be left out at the time of decision on
the report under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
No notification earlier issued under Land Acquisition Act
should lapse.
7. That reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act should not be delayed. Pendency of reference has
financial implication."
20. The only guideline discernible from the aforesaid letter
dated June 26, 1991 is that survey of existing construction
F should be done before notification is issued under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act; that existing factory should not be
acquired and it should be released from the proceedings of
Section 4 notification and that constructed area of 'A' and 'B'
grade should be left out of acquisition. In Sube Singh7, this
G Court has already held that classification on the basis of nature
of construction cannot be validly made and such policy is not
based on intelligible differentia and a rational basis germane
to the purpose. The policy articulated in the letter dated June
26, 1991, thus, hardly helps the respondents. Rather it is seen
that neither the aforesaid policy nor any other policy has been
H
HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
775
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
followed by the State Government while releasing land of A
various landowners whose lands have been acquired in the
same acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, the only
policy that seems to have been followed is : you show me the
face and I'll show you the rule. Insofar as policy of 2007 is
concerned, apparently that has not been applied to any of the
B
landowners whose land was acquired along with the appellants'
land under the same acquisition proceedings and released
later on. We are pained to observe that when this Court directed
to the State Government vide order dated August 19, 2008 to
consider release of the land of the appellants from acquisition, c
obviously the State Government was required to consider the
representations of the appellants by applying the same
standards as were applied to other landowners whose lands
were acquired for the same purpose and under the same
acquisition proceedings and released later on. However, the
0
representations made by the appellants were rejected by relying
upon the policy dated October 26, 2007 which on its face is
erroneous and unsustainable in law.
21. Now, we advert to the few instances of landowners who
filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the same
E
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and in whose
matters Joint Inspection Committee did not recommend
release of their lands from acquisition and the High Court
dismissed their writ petitions, yet later on their lands were
released from acquisition by the State Government on the
F
representations made by them in exercise of its power under
Section 48 of the Act.
Land of Smt. Ram Kala :
She is owner of land admeasuring 600 sq. yards.
There is no construction in the said plot. She challenged
the acquisition notifications vide CWP No. 18087 of 1995.
The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by
common judgment dated August 13, 1998 as the Joint
G
H
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 2 S.C.R.
A
Inspection Committee had not recommended release of
her land. She then applied for release of her land from
acquisition under Section 48 of the Act. Vide order dated
November 6, 2001, her land was released. The said order
reads thus:
B
"From:
c
D
E
F
G
H
To
Director,
Urban Estate Department, Haryana, Panchkla.
Administrator, HUDA
Gurgaon.
Memo No.S-1-2001/8226
Dated
Subject:- Release of land in Sector 1 Narnaul (Smt. Ram
Kala w/o Hari Singh).
On the above subject, in reference to your letter
bearing Memo No.1650 dated 23.01.01.
2. In this regard, you are informed that the
Government has agreed for release the land of Smt. Ram
Kala w/o Shri Han Singh, Rio Narnaul, bearing Khasra
No.87211278, 1055/3, area 600 sq. yards, falling in Sector
1, Narnaul for residential purpose on the usual conditions.
The condition of recovery of development charges
proportionately would be applicable on the party.
3. In pursuance of letter bearing memo No.2280-72
dated 04.08.86 and letter memo No.23640-63 dated
'18.9.2000 and by keeping in view the instructions, first of
all the amount of development charges is to be recovered
from the party and thereafter to send the sanctioned
agreement to the Head Office for finalizing the agreement.
4. Party would be required to comply with conditions
of release as per the agreement to be executed.
HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
777
[R.M.